Classic British Aircraft: Back in production!

Thanks for your vote of confidence in my ability to get the Airtourer down to Oz, JDK, but I fear it would be a long haul, despite the guaranteed hospitality once we got there. Re your query on how many fly in UK, well it’s 12 out of the 30 odd that were imported. I always get asked when I arrive at a Fly-In if I built it myself, which I’m not sure I take as a compliment.
On the subject of Ozzie designs wasn’t there a crop-sprayer with twin booms (to allow tankers to drive up to the hopper) called the Agtruck? Odd looking thing that didn’t sell too well although one made it to Kenya in the 70s when I was working out there.

Slightly O/T but Cliff Tait took one around the world in 1969 so a quick trip down under shouldn’t be too difficult LOL!!;):)

Yes, they did, and yes they are considering new production.
The company is Viking out of B.C.

I wonder if they start up production if it would be the Mk. III Turbo Beaver to take advantage of the more widly available Jet fuel?
It would be interesting to hear their business case comparing costs with a Cessna Caravan.

I’d love to see some new ones made and as seen on the DHC2 site, they’re still in demand with wrecks always being rebuilt.

I’d say at a guess that Cessna Grand Caravan is almost the same size as the Otter. If the carrying capacity is roughly the same for both then the Beaver fills a slot in the market that the other 2 are too big for.
Thank you Mr Boyle, I cannot remember where I saw the rumour but it’s nice to know that the memory still works occasionally

I read in a mag that Gippsland Aeronautics were going to put the Nomad back into production, they had aquired the rights from Boeing Australia (?) as a very good deal to keep them in Australia.

Well remembered Paul.
http://www.trademinister.gov.au/releases/2008/sc_048a.html

http://www.theage.com.au/national/nomad-is-to-soar-once-again-20080617-2s8u.html?page=-1

GAF Nomad

I read in a mag that Gippsland Aeronautics were going to put the Nomad back into production, they had aquired the rights from Boeing Australia (?) as a very good deal to keep them in Australia.

Paul

Careful. I didn’t say Rolls Royce – you did. They do have a good reputation. Jaguar’s stinks in the US, because of build quality and lack of reliability.

Can I point out that in the Siver Shadows and similar Bentleys that two of the necessary systems for luxury automobiles….automatic transmission and air conditioning…were supplied by General Motors?

Jaguar’s reputation went up only after Ford bought it and pumped in millions of pounds to improve build quality and more reliable subsystems.

Clear cases of “lesser” cars having something over the design capability of two firms known for their design prowess. A great design with lovely engineering isn’t worth a lot if a 25p Lucas relay fails on your way to a night out. Your date won’t be impressed with your fancy toy if she has to wait for the AA man.

Comparing the PA-28 to the Beagle is likewise apples and oranges…the Piper was designed to be a Ford of the air, never meant (or priced) to be like the Pup or Bulldog. If they were priced similarly in the UK, I’d imagine that has to do more with import duties than the intent and desire of the Piper design staff.

I’ve often thought about the viability of someone (with deep pockets) building a 99% scale composite version of the DH Mosquito. Built from modern composites and slightly reduced in scale, these adjustments would probably be enough to prevent BAe Defence Systems from stopping such a project. My understanding is that they aren’t that keen on allowing anyone from building an exact replica. The aircraft would be powered by the Merlin and the wings/fuselage covered in doped fabric (as per original). The aircraft would look, sound and smell like an original, but virtually everything onboard would be modern. Just a Suggestion.

Before the ongoing financial crisis, I would have imagined that you would be able to sell maybe two or three to rich collectors (as per FW190/Me262). Now, if you could find a modern commercial for such an aircraft…

Sadly, the idea would probably only be an American project, due to their extensive experience in building using composite materials (Scaled Composites comes to mind).

Ahem, Yerp and the UK (Incl. N.I. of course) are streets ahead of the USA when it comes to CFRP research and application. Even the A400, pig that it is, is well ahead of the Dreamliner.

And mozzies were Wood, Birch in fact……not fabric.

Pagen, thanks for proving my point. 😉 A fundamental problem of the British aero industry from 1945-1970 is an inability to recognise and act on global forces.

JDK I’m not sure if I’m surprised bu your outlook or not.
…
I happen to think we had the best designers, and constructors up to the early 1970s.

You can believe what you like; it’s evident that British aircraft, without the pre-war Empire Preference Scheme just weren’t competitive.

The failure of our industry wasn’t inferior designs or construction (as suggested in earlier post) or can be put down to just not addressing customers needs.

Er, yes, it was. There were aircraft that were better at delivering the results, were less complex to maintain and fly and which cost less. ‘Style’ has a very limited edge in military and commercial aviation sales, for all the noise people make about it. You can add the other ingredient (used here, often as a fig leaf for the rest) of ‘political incompetence / interference’ but as AlertKen has repeatedly shown, most British aircraft companies were gloriously incompetent – the politicians were making mud pies with great mud.

We simply didn’t, and could’nt produce in the mighty volumes of say the ‘States, or have their marketing clout.

‘Please Miss it wasn’t us miss, it was them, miss!’ 😀

Unit-cost reduction available to US builders was certainly an edge that the British industry couldn’t match. But it was only one factor. Turning out aircraft like the Short Sealand when there was Grumman alternatives is a classic case study of ‘why bother’. (I like the Sealand, but if I needed an amphibian to run an airline – it wouldn’t make the longlist.)

The marketing excuse is just that – an excuse. Other British products have great global sales due to effective marketing.

Example the VC-10 is far superior in quality of design and construction than an equivelant Boeing, same could be said of Pup over Piper PA-28.

Interesting. Cost of maintenance in terms of man-hours? I think you need to explore real reactions rather than buying the company publicity.

The VC 10 was a great aircraft, in a way. Didn’t do a job at a seat-mile cost anyone wanted. Why? Complex. Whose fault? Dunno. Should we have been flying 707s rather than VC-10s? Can’t see it really.

Most customers like cheap and easy, but some appreciate style and build quality and bought the pup (and Jaguar, Rolls etc, popular abroad contrary to your earlier statement). Yes our products were more expensive and sometimes more complicated than need be, but I don’t think build quality can be knocked.

Careful. I didn’t say Rolls Royce – you did. They do have a good reputation. Jaguar’s stinks in the US, because of build quality and lack of reliability.

If your products are ‘more expensive’ and ‘more complicated’ your not going to sell them if cheaper, simpler alternatives exist.

It’s a tough, competitive world out there in a capitalist environment. Post-war British just aircraft weren’t good enough to compete. (Of course, there are exceptions.) The why can be debated, and is, often here, endlessly – but the crunch is that the industry failed to compete.

Canada and Australia went into W.W.II operating and building British designs (such as the Stranraer, Hurricane, Tiger Moth and Beaufort) – they left W.W.II building American designs – Catalina, Mustang et al. Most Britons are, rightly, quick to point out that American production and expansion flooded opportunities – which is true.

But most Britons don’t know that the Canadian and Australian aircraft buyers had realised in the late 1930s that the writing was on the wall for British designs which were, often, second-rate and only sold due to the Empire Protection Scheme. Australia ditched de Havilland DH 86 Expresses as quick as possible and bought DC-2s instead; Lockheed 10 and 12s were vastly better than Dragons or Rapides. The NA design led to the CAC Wirraway, because Britain had nothing suitable to offer (the Battle and Lysander were suggested) but Australia was hammered by clowns like CG Grey and obstructed by the SBAC for buying American. People like Wackett probably had a quiet smile when Britain was forced to buy the Harvard because the indigenous industry couldn’t design and manufacture an aircraft in enough numbers to do the advanced trainer job.

I love British aircraft, they’re great fun. I just don’t live in ‘little England where home-made is best.’

Regards,

Re the Beaver-I’d heard that the same company that has bought the rights to the Twotter had also bought the rights to the Beaver, maybe I’m dreaming but I certainly can’t remember where I read it so maybe I was. Do hope not though.

Yes, they did, and yes they are considering new production.
The company is Viking out of B.C.

I wonder if they start up production if it would be the Mk. III Turbo Beaver to take advantage of the more widly available Jet fuel?
It would be interesting to hear their business case comparing costs with a Cessna Caravan.

I’d love to see some new ones made and as seen on the DHC2 site, they’re still in demand with wrecks always being rebuilt.

Gooday All

The British Aircraft Industry, gone the same way as Sheffield Steel Knives – from market leader to whatever you call nothing.

I read in various postings to this forum example after example of Britian having the engineering lead only to throw it away. I am refering to the period 1950 to 1970.

I wonder what the effect was on Britian of losing so many of the bright and best potential leaders during WW2. Seem to an outsider that there were a few dullards in charge from the 1950’s onwards and I don’t think Britian has ever recovered and likely never will.

The 2000’s is the return to technical and innovation dominance by the normal leaders — the Chinese. (The Chinese produce over 4 million engineering graduates from their universities EACH year, now that must have some affect.)

Say goodbye to Europe and USA, say hello to Asia.

cheers

Unlike the valuable work undertaken in the ‘is this the right room for a 558 argument’ thread. :rolleyes:

I’d suggest sales potential is critical in looking at (re-)starting production of any type. It’s a reasonable thesis to say that a failure of the post-war British aircraft industry was not addressing what customers really wanted with competitive designs. If we are to take the question seriously (don’t see why not) overseas sales potential is highly germane.

But let’s not burst any bubbles, eh?

Typical British arrogance really, we’re very good at giving people what we think they want rather than listening when they tell us what they actually need and catering to their requirements

JDK wrote

“Australia (again unlike Canada) has only ever had modest international sales ambitions with aircraft, and thus has no significant national reputation – good, or bad, IMHO.”

Jindavik sold pretty well! and lets not forget the Go-Mad once they figured out how to glue the tail on………….

Powered by a good? British engine, the constant power variable noise Viper

I heard on radio Canada the other day that the (Canadian) Twin Otter(?) is going back into production, wouldn’t be surprised if someone puts the (Canadian) Beaver back in production too.

Chipmunks, whether they be Canadian, English or other nationalities would be nice to see in production again. A few years ago I read about a fellow (Canadian?) who was making a (kit for a?) Chipmunk on steroids, wonder if it’s still around.

Re the Beaver-I’d heard that the same company that has bought the rights to the Twotter had also bought the rights to the Beaver, maybe I’m dreaming but I certainly can’t remember where I read it so maybe I was. Do hope not though.

I agree with Bruce, de Havilland is English, we want new Chipmunks!

Yes plenty of them at a reasonable price so that every pilot of nose draggers can afford to have a real aeroplane and remember what their feet are for.

JDK I’m not sure if I’m surprised bu your outlook or not.
The failure of our industry wasn’t inferior designs or construction (as suggested in earlier post) or can be put down to just not addressing customers needs.
We simply didn’t, and could’nt produce in the mighty volumes of say the ‘States, or have their marketing clout.
Example the VC-10 is far superior in quality of design and construction than an equivelant Boeing, same could be said of Pup over Piper PA-28. Most customers like cheap and easy, but some appreciate style and build quality and bought the pup (and Jaguar, Rolls etc, popular abroad contrary to your earlier statement). Yes our products were more expensive and sometimes more complicated than need be, but I don’t think build quality can be knocked.
I happen to think we had the best designers, and constructors up to the early 1970s.

Thanks for your vote of confidence in my ability to get the Airtourer down to Oz, JDK, but I fear it would be a long haul, despite the guaranteed hospitality once we got there. Re your query on how many fly in UK, well it’s 12 out of the 30 odd that were imported. I always get asked when I arrive at a Fly-In if I built it myself, which I’m not sure I take as a compliment.
On the subject of Ozzie designs wasn’t there a crop-sprayer with twin booms (to allow tankers to drive up to the hopper) called the Agtruck? Odd looking thing that didn’t sell too well although one made it to Kenya in the 70s when I was working out there.

I’d be happy if they just started making all the spares again for a Chipmunk…..:)

Sorry, I know, it’s not English, etc, etc…….:D

The whole thread is fairly pointless, seems a bit silly to bang on about where the Chipmunk came from or how bad our products seem to foreigners!

Unlike the valuable work undertaken in the ‘is this the right room for a 558 argument’ thread. :rolleyes:

I’d suggest sales potential is critical in looking at (re-)starting production of any type. It’s a reasonable thesis to say that a failure of the post-war British aircraft industry was not addressing what customers really wanted with competitive designs. If we are to take the question seriously (don’t see why not) overseas sales potential is highly germane.

But let’s not burst any bubbles, eh?

But you knew all those, din’t you? :D[/QUOTE]

……………’kenoath…..

The whole thread is fairly pointless, seems a bit silly to bang on about where the Chipmunk came from or how bad our products seem to foreigners!

Jindavik sold pretty well! and lets not forget the Go-Mad once they figured out how to glue the tail on………….

Yes, Boeing and Airbus did have a defensive strategy in the global market for those. 😀 I think you overlooked the Drover, the most successful trimotor of it’s era.:p

I sometimes wonder if Australian aircraft manufacturing could have notched up some of Canada’s successes – but I think it’s simply that our domestic market (springboard) was just a little to small while Canada’s was just big enough.

I suspect that the Aussie types we are discussing are so successful people are thoroughly familiar with them. For those not fluent in Stryne, they are:

Victa Airtourer
(Kiwi) Pacific Aerospace Corporation CT-4
Gippsland Aeronautics GA8 Airvan
Government Aircraft Factory Jindivik (target)
Government Aircraft Factory Nomad
de Havilland Australia Drover

But you knew all those, din’t you? 😀